' SALMAN HAMID, J.---The petitioner before us has challenged the validity of Notification dated 31-1- 2008 (Impugned Notification), whereby to provide research facilities and conservation of plant biodiversity, the respondent No,3 was pleased to establish a Centre for Plant Conservation (C.P.C.) in the University of Karachi and respondent No,8 was appointed as its head who was junior to the petitioner.
2. According to Ms. Raana Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the C.P.C. Has been created in violation of section 21(a) of the University of Karachi Act, 1972 (Act 1972). This illegal creation, according to Ms. Khan, was because there was no approval from the Senate which was a requirement of the Act, 1972. For the approval of the Senate for creation of any institute or department, in the present case the C.P.C., the Syndicate in terms of the provisions of section 28(1)
(g) was to make statutes (Rules) and was to table it before the Senate for approval or otherwise. It was argued that this procedure, as required under the Act, 1972 was not followed. It was also the case of the petitioner that the Botanical Garden and Herbarium should be a part of the Botany Department.
3. It was also argued by Ms. Khan that Annexure-D to the Petition is the PC-1 for establishment of the Herbarium of Karachi University, though the Herbarium in the Botany Department is available.
Hence, with the creation of the C.P.C. All the plants and books belonging to the Botany department have been shifted to the C.P.C. It was lastly argued that since the petitioner is the head of the Botany Department, Respondent No,8 should work under the former.
4. Rebutting the argumenth of Ms. Khan, Mr. Moin Azhar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 3 to 8 pointed out that the C.P.C. Was created with the approval of the Higher Education Commission, Islamabad under Clause 10(i) of the Ordinance LIII of 2002 and with the subsequent approval of the same in its meeting of 12-7-2003. So also in terms of section 4(p) of the Act, 1972, where under the University of Karachi is empowered to establish teaching departments, schools, colleges, faculties, institutes. Museums and other centres of learning for the development of teaching and research and to make such arrangements for their maintenance, management and administration as it may determine. In line with above provisions, the C.P.C. Was created which has no direct rexus with the Botany Department save that the students of such department would also be entitled to study for doctorate degrees, which before the creation of the C.P.C. Was, not offered by such department.
5. It was further argued by Mr. Siddiqui that in terms of section 14 of the Act, 1972, the respondent No,3 (the Vice-Chancellor) exercised all functions of the University and therefore, he was, under the law, competent to create departments. It was further pointed out that the Senate, under section 21 would consider the draft of statutes (Rules), proposed by the Syndicate and that in the present case resolution by the Syndicate (Annexure R/3 to the comments) for draft of statute (Rules) was passed per section 23(y) of the Act, 1972 for doing the needful. It was also pointed out that by way of residuary provision as contained in section 23(aa), the Syndicate has the power to regulate, determine and administer all other matters concerning the University and to this end, exercise all other powers not specifically mentioned in the Act, 1972. Under the above legal position, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 3 to 8 prayed that the Petition be dismissed with costs.
6. Mr. Mian Khan, the learned D.A.-G. On court notice argued on behalf of the Higher Education Commission, Islamabad (HEC) that HEC has only provided funds for research and development to the University of Karachi and that HEC had nothing to do with the internal administrative matters of the University which were undertaken by the University on its own as contemplated under the Act, 1972. It was further argued that since under section 10 of the Act, 1972 an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, she ought to have exhausted it first. The Petition, was thus, according to the learned D.A.-G. Not maintainable,
7. In rebuttal to the arguments of Mr. Siddigui, Ms. Khan stated that per section 28(1)(g) of the Act, 1972, statutes (Rules) were to be made first for the establishment of the C.P.C. It was also argued that per section 23(y) the Syndicate had to propose the statutes (Rules) to the Senate for approval.
According to learned Counsel, since the statute (Rules) have not been approved by the Senate, C.P.C. Could not have been established. Under the circumstances. Application of section 23(aa) of Act, 1972 was also challenged. It was urged that for creation of departments and institutes, specific provisions are available in the Act, 1972.
8 Heard arguments and perused the file.
9. The record of the case would show that the Syndicate of the University of Karachi in its meeting of 23-1-2010 approved the establishment of the C.P.C. To achieve this goal, the Syndicate in terms of clause (y) of subsection (2) of section 23 of the Act, 1972 had prepared proposed draft statutes (Rules) for approval by the Senate. Perusal of section 23 under which proposed draft statutes (Rules) were sent to the Senate for approval would show that the Syndicate is the executive body of the University and subject to the provisions of Act, 1972 exercises general supervision over the affairs and management of the University. The Syndicate has been given powers respecting the affairs and management of the property of the University from clauses (a) to (cc) of subsection (2) of section 23. Sub-clause (y) thereof specifically provides and empowers the Syndicate to propose draft statutes (Rules) for submission to the Senate. Since the draft statutes (Rules) have been sent for approval by the Syndicate to the Senate, under the mandate of law i,e, section 21(a) of the Act 1972, the legal requirements have been achieved. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner's Counsel that the creation of C.P.C. Was in violation of section 21(a) has no force.
10. It would also be advantageous to examine the provisions of section 21 of the Act, 1972 at this stage which deals with powers and duties of the Senate. Sub-clause (a) of section 21 gives power to the Senate to consider the drafts of Statutes (Rules), proposed by the Syndicate and deal with such draft statutes (Rules) in the manner indicated in subsection (2) of section 28. Subsection (2) of section 28 of the Act of 1972 speaks about the draft statutes (Rules) to be proposed by the Syndicate to the Senate which may approve it or pass it with such modifications as the Senate may think fit or, may refer it back to the Syndicate for re-consideration, or may reject it.
11. Since in the present case the entire legal machinery, as provided under the Act of 1972 has been followed and the fact that under section 28(g), which provides for the establishment of faculties, institutes and colleges and other academic divisions and the C.P.C. Being one of such B kind has been established, no deviation or violation of section 21(a) of the Act, 1972 has been committed.
Therefore, interference of this court in the business of the respondents, which is in line with the provisions of Act, 1972, is not required.
12. It may also be noted that the petitioner is Head of the Botany Department and the. C.P.C. Was created as an independent department. According to the respondents the C.P.C. Would cater to the students, aspiring for higher education by way of applying for doctorate degrees which before the establishment of C.P.C. Was not available with the University of Karachi in the discipline of Botany and/or in the Department of Botany. Even otherwise since the petitioner is one of the teaching staff/officer of the University of Karachi, she had no right to object to the establishment of the C.P.C., and that too when it was in the larger interest of the University, educationists; students and researchers and free from any violation of the provisions of Act, 1972.
13. We are constrained to note that since the petitioner is a member of the teaching staff in the University of Karachi and the fact that her position has not been affected, she was not competent to file the present petition for two fold reasons. Firstly, she does not fall within the meaning of an aggrieved person as contemplated under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and Secondly, the petitioner cannot interfere with the administrative decisions of the University, concerning creation of a department for promotion of higher education. According to us the grounds on which this petition was filed by the petitioner were not available to her being a teaching staff. Nevertheless and at best the petitioner was perhaps entitled to prefer a petition before the Chancellor in terms of section 10(3) of the Act, 1972 for the alleged irregularities and lapses and violation of law. Instead, the petitioner in her infinite wisdom chose to prefer the present petition for her remedy.
14. Under the circumstances this petition must fail and we order accordingly.